Hat-tip Labour Matters
Further to my post on 30th August about Tory millionaires, where I wrote "Look out for policies that will specifically help millionaires and ignore everyone else", the Telegraph reports that the Conservatives are planning to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £2 million.
Surely they've proposed this just so the likes of David Willets (worth £1.9 million), Caroline Spelman (worth £1.5 million) and Michael Gove (worth £1 million) are taken out of the tax altogether, and people like George Osborne (worth £4.3 million), David Cameron (worth £3.2 million) and William Hague (worth £2.2 million) have their liability cut sharply.
Indeed it's likely that the initial £1 million tax threshold they proposed last year was just a trial balloon to see if anyone objected. If no one objects to this, watch for them to try to raise it to £5 million. Nests, feathering, anyone?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
It will also help:
The Milibands
The Balls
Lord Sainsbury
G Robinson
The Balirs
and other Labour notables.
When you have them all on agreeing with you, I'll be convinced.
Great news that people get to keep their own money that they have already paid tax on several times.
madsafish - the Labour people you have listed DO NOT WANT to raise the inheritance tax threshold. They are happy to pay the tax. They do not believe in messing around the tax code to benefit themselves at the expense of millions of Labour voters.
The Tories do believe that they have the right to change the tax code just to benefit the millionaires in the shadow cabinet. Tory voters won't benefit because most are well below the current tax thresholds - but they'll probably pay for this in other ways, perhaps a VAT rise, so the aristocrats get their tax break.
That's the difference - The Labour party happily taxing themselves for the greater good, and the Tories lining their pockets at the expense of everyone else.
How can you justify someone like Caroline Spelman, worth £1.5 million, who charges things to the public purse that she shouldn't, and now lobbying in the shadow cabinet for a tax change that will personally benefit herself. She's the face of pure Greed.
Forelock tugging must be in fashion in the conservative party if you are prepared to justify this.
Are you saying that hand on heart you don't think anyone of those rich Labour notables Madasafish listed have any kind of tax avoidance plans to shave their IHT liabilities?
Could all the fuss about what may or may not be Tory tax poliocy be a cover for the private polling news from UNITE union.Only 35% of their members would vote Labour.
Or could it be the OECD report to-day, confirming the scale of the UK's forthcoming recession,the worst in Europe with the UK dropping to last of the G7 countries (worse than Italy) that takes some doing.
brocodesley - the story broke in the Telegraph. Am not sure if you are aware, but the Telegraph is right-wing and not controlled by Labour, and doesn't publish news to help the Labour party.
I imagine the Telegraph ran this because they are genuinely disturbed at the idea of a potential government enacting policy simply to benefit individuals in it - a bit like Berlusconi passing legislation that has no purpose except to help him.
broncodelsey posted the following comment on the snowflake image (am reposting it here, as I think he intended it to be on this post). Here's what he said:
Talking about benefitting a few individuals have you heard about the £ 8 million so called MP'S communication allowance targetted at Labour MP's in marginal constituencies?
Or the so called trade union modernisation fund,£10 million of taxpayers money that gets passed to the unions and by an amazing coincidence is almost the same amount that the trade unions pass back to the Labour party as political donations.
Or maybe you wern't around during the cash for peerages scandal?
Seems that Blair learnt quite a bit during his holidays with Berlosconi
My reply:
The Communications allowance applies to ALL MPs (i.e. Tory MPs like Cameron and Hague will be making use of it). It's a lie to suggest that it applies to Labour MPs only.
Secondly it is spent communicating with the voter. No amount of it goes into the MP's pocket therefore there is no personal gain.
The Tory policy of increasing the IHT threshold to £2 million however is all about personal gain (few voters will benefit from this policy, certainly few Tory voters who all claim to be hard-up and in debt and thus have nothing to leave on death).
Regarding trade unions - all sorts of people join trade unions. I undertand that a Unite survey indicated that just 35% on union members are Labour voters. 65% are not. This is a similar percentage that you find in most organisations and clubs (union or not) across the UK. Thus all voters benefit if their trade union is able to protect them from unscrupulous employers, and all benefit from trade unions insisting that employment law is upheld. Again your allegation that only Labour benefits here is a lie.
Post a Comment